People v. Ciarleglio

299 A.D.2d 571, 748 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10567
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 7, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 571 (People v. Ciarleglio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Ciarleglio, 299 A.D.2d 571, 748 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered September 22, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

In satisfaction of a superior court information, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to six months in jail and five years’ probation. After reviewing the presentence investigation report, County Court refused to honor the plea agreement. Defendant nevertheless declined the opportunity to withdraw his plea, and the court thereafter sentenced him to lVs to 4 years in prison.

[572]*572We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. A sentence that is within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see People v Spencer, 272 AD2d 682, lv denied 95 NY2d 858; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, lv denied 93 NY2d 872). Here, the presentence investigation report chronicles defendant’s extensive criminal history, which dates back to 1978. Although defendant received the maximum sentence permissible by statute (see Penal Law § 70.00), we find neither a clear abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence imposed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Decoste
144 A.D.3d 1265 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Guyett
137 A.D.3d 1329 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Rivers
130 A.D.3d 1092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Greene
72 A.D.3d 1279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Lowe
53 A.D.3d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Garcia
13 A.D.3d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Young
13 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 A.D.2d 571, 748 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ciarleglio-nyappdiv-2002.